Iran blames the US for Israeli airstrikes amid escalating tensions
Image: Independent Media Archives
The Iranian government has blamed the United States of America for the Israeli airstrike on its country this week.
In a statement released on Friday through its embassy in Pretoria, Iran's Foreign Affairs Ministry said the Zionist regime's aggressive actions against Iran could not have happened without US coordination and approval.
'Consequently, the US government, as the primary patron of this regime, will also bear responsibility for the dangerous repercussions of the Zionist regime's reckless actions,' read the statement.
In February, US President Donald Trump signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM), calling on Iran to be stopped from engaging in any nuclear programmes.
He said Iran should be denied a nuclear weapon and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and that its terrorist network should be neutralised and its aggressive development of missiles, as well as other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities, be countered.
The memorandum read: 'In 2020, President Trump declared that as long as (he is) President of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.'
International media reported on Friday that the Israeli military attacked Iran's nuclear and military sites, killing senior military officials and nuclear scientists.
According to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), among those who were killed in the early hours of Friday in Tehran, Iran's capital, was Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Major-General Hossein Salami.
In another statement released on Thursday, the Iranian government said the country only has a 'peaceful nature of its nuclear programme'.
It said the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)'s Board of Governors had been misled by France, the UK, Germany, and the US to cast doubt about the nature of its nuclear programme.
The Ministry stated that Israeli attacks on Iran constitute a violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter.
'In accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran reserves the legitimate and legal right to respond to this aggression. The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will not hesitate to defend Iran's sovereignty with full strength and in the manner they deem appropriate,' read Friday's statement.
The Ministry also called on the UN to carry out its mandate of preventing aggression, breach of peace, and threats to peace.
'The Islamic Republic of Iran underscores the Security Council's obligation to take immediate action against this violation of international peace and security, stemming from the Zionist regime's blatant aggression.
'We call upon the President and members of the Council to act without delay in this regard,' the Ministry said.
FDD said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the airstrike on Iran through the operation 'Rising Lion' as aimed at rolling back the Iranian threat to Israel's survival.
FDD said Netanyahu said the strikes will 'continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat'.
It said Netanyahu stressed his gratitude to Trump 'for his steadfast stance', against Iran's nuclear weapons.
In defence of Israeli action, FDD Chief Executive Officer Mark Dubowitz said the Israeli inaction would have had a far greater cost.
'Israel did what had to be done: defend itself, the West, and ultimately the Iranian people from the genocidal ambitions of the mullahs.
'Nuclear talks were heading to collapse under Tehran's defiance, and sanctions alone couldn't stop Iran's race toward multiple nuclear weapons,' said Dubowitz.
However, South Africa's former member of the IAEA Board of Directors, Dr Abdul Samad Minty, told the International Union of Scientists publication early this year that the IAEA had previously found no evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.
'When I was on the board of the IAEA, I was able to expose in many cases that Iran was complying with the peaceful requirements of the IAEA, but the Western countries continued to support Israel's case that Iran was developing nuclear weapons.
'There was no evidence at that time that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, but they thought that all nuclear cooperation with Iran should be stopped, because it had the potential in the end to develop nuclear weapons,' the publication quoted Minty.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Eyewitness News
22 minutes ago
- Eyewitness News
'Multilateralism under attack': Ramaphosa sounds alarm over worsening state of geopolitcs
JOHANNESBURG - President Cyril Ramaphosa has sounded the alarm over the worsening state of geopolitics, saying that "multilateralism is under attack".Ramaphosa said that multilateral institutions like the United Nations (UN) needed to be strengthened and reformed. The president was speaking at the Union Buildings on Friday, where he hosted Austrian head of state, Alexander van der Bellen. While South Africa and Austria are currently not involved in any conflicts, both nations have suffered residual effects of the wars currently taking place across the president said that this state visit came at a time of heightened global insecurity, including the climate emergency."These events reinforce the need for strengthening the multilateral system which we see under attack and it is countries such as Austria and South Africa who firmly believe in a multilateral system who can defend it." Austria said it shared South Africa's values of multilateralism, respect for international law and peace through disarmament.
TimesLIVE
42 minutes ago
- TimesLIVE
Civil society leaves UN development summit feeling unheard
When more than 1,000 civil society representatives flocked to Seville this week for a UN conference on development financing, their expectations were already low — but the four-day event left many frustrated and feeling their voices were stifled. The once-in-a-decade summit promised to marshall resources that could narrow the estimated $4.3-trillion (R75.79-trillion) financing gap needed to help developing countries overcome mounting debt distress, the ravages of climate change or structural inequality, among other hurdles. However, the world's richest governments have been slashing aid and bilateral lending while increasingly prioritising defence spending as geopolitical tensions escalate, raising doubts that the cautious optimism expressed by most officials in attendance was realistic. Several civil society organisations (CSOs) were critical of the measures outlined in a final document, the "Seville Commitment", which they said was watered down by wealthier nations unwilling to walk the talk. Others lambasted what they described as a private sector-first approach to development. Arthur Larok, secretary general of ActionAid, said Global South countries were "returning home empty-handed" while Global North governments did so "free from responsibility".
IOL News
an hour ago
- IOL News
US Congress proposes sanctions against South Africa over Israel case
US President Donald Trump hands papers to President Cyril Ramaphosa during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. Image: AFP A controversial bill introduced in the United States Congress aims to cut off direct aid to South Africa and impose targeted sanctions on its political leaders, citing the country's legal action against Israel at the International Court of Justice and its growing diplomatic ties with Iran and Hamas. Republican Representative Greg Steube on Friday tabled the Addressing Hostile and Antisemitic Conduct by the Republic of South Africa Act of 2025 in the US House of Representatives. The proposed legislation accuses the South African government of using international institutions to wage 'lawfare' against Israel, advancing what it calls an 'antisemitic narrative under the guise of international law'. 'It is clear as day that the Government of South Africa is unfairly targeting the State of Israel and inciting hostility towards the United States and our allies,' Steube said in a statement dated June 17. 'America has no business engaging with a corrupt government that weaponises its political system against the Jewish people while jeopardising our national security interests by indulging terrorist organisations and their sponsors.' Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad loading Steube said the bill is a direct response to South Africa's 'genocide' case against Israel at the ICJ, its hosting of Hamas delegations following the October 7 attacks, and the signing of an economic cooperation deal with Iran involving oil refinery projects. Under the bill, the US would suspend all direct assistance to South Africa, excluding humanitarian and public health aid, unless the government ceases all formal support for international legal actions 'that unfairly target the State of Israel', implements institutional reforms to combat corruption, and improves diplomatic cooperation with the United States. It also authorises the US president to impose sanctions, under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, on any South African official deemed to have promoted antisemitic policies or misused international courts to attack Israel. Political analyst Siseko Maposa, director at Surgetower Associates, said while the bill's passage is uncertain, its symbolic and diplomatic weight should not be underestimated. 'This bill exemplifies President Trump and the Republican faction's continued efforts to punish South Africa for its principled positions on international justice – particularly regarding Israel,' said Maposa. 'What distinguishes this initiative from prior attempts, however, is its heavy enforcement mechanisms, which would inflict tangible consequences for South Africa if enacted.' He noted that from 2012 to 2021, South Africa received an estimated $6 billion in direct US foreign direct investment, and a significant portion of development assistance has flowed through US government and affiliated aid programmes. 'While passage remains uncertain, a narrow legislative pathway exists. Republicans hold a slim majority in both chambers, but recent infighting, such as the collapse of the 'Big Beautiful Bill' vote, shows that internal dissent could derail it. South Africa's best chance may lie in lobbying moderate Republicans to oppose this draconian overreach,' he said. Maposa also warned that the bill could face legal challenges in the US if its conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism is seen as infringing on constitutional free speech protections. At the time of publication, the South African government had not issued a formal response. However, senior ANC leaders have previously defended the country's application to the ICJ as a legal obligation under the Genocide Convention, following Israel's military campaign in Gaza that has resulted in tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths and widespread humanitarian destruction. Foreign Minister Naledi Pandor has been a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights and last year described the ICJ case as a stand for 'international justice and accountability'. Steube's bill frames these actions differently, alleging that South Africa has 'repeatedly turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by Hamas and Iran against Israel and the United States,' while 'aligning itself with authoritarian regimes hostile to United States national interests'. The bill further accuses the ANC of giving legitimacy to terrorist actors, pointing to its meetings with Hamas officials and Tehran's diplomatic engagement with Pretoria. The Democratic Alliance, the country's main opposition party, is expected to weigh in on the diplomatic fallout. The DA has previously criticised the ANC government's foreign policy as isolating South Africa from key Western partners. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation will likely be called on to explain whether any formal communication has been received from US officials regarding the bill and what diplomatic channels, if any, are being pursued to address it. Should the bill pass, it could result in South African officials being barred from travelling to the US or having assets frozen under US jurisdiction. It could also signal further deteriorating relations between the two countries, which have clashed in recent years over BRICS alignment, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and military cooperation exercises with China. For now, Pretoria's best hope appears to rest on political divisions within the US Republican Party. Maposa said: 'This internal Republican division may be its sole reprieve – one Pretoria must seize by urgently lobbying moderate Republican legislators to oppose the bill outright.' Presidential spokesperson Vincent Magwenya said the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) was best suited to respond to the bill. The Department of International Relations and Cooperation confirmed that it is monitoring the proposed legislation through diplomatic channels. Spokesperson Chrispin Phiri said: 'As you may know, an act or bill is proposed and passed by a country's legislative body, such as the Parliament in South Africa or the Congress and Senate in the USA. These bodies operate within their sovereign territories, and their primary function is to create or implement policy through legislation, typically without the need for consultation with other nations. We recognise that this principle underscores the autonomy of states in their legislative processes. Legislative processes by their nature are publicly accessible, as such our Embassy in Washington D.C. will be able to monitor relevant developments.' On political lobbying within the US, Phiri said: 'We have noted the information regarding the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its financial contributions to American politicians. We understand that AIPAC openly ties its contributions to candidates' support for the US-Israel relationship, thereby creating a significant incentive for politicians to align with this stance. There is public information indicating that some House Representatives who have introduced bills may fall within this category of politicians.' Phiri added that South Africa's foreign policy remains non-aligned. 'Minister Lamola consistently asserts that South Africa's foreign policy is independent and non-aligned, rooted in its constitutional principles and national interests, rather than hostility towards any nation.' Regarding Iran, he said: 'South Africa upholds its dedication to international initiatives to curtail the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and supports the right to develop nuclear capability for peaceful purposes. South Africa's engagement with Iran is consistent with its broader foreign policy of engaging with all countries.' He said South Africa's approach to foreign policy was based on constitutional values and international legal principles. 'We reemphasise that our foreign policy is based on principles such as human rights, self-determination, anti-colonialism, multilateralism, peaceful resolution of conflicts, and the pursuit of a just and equitable world order. These are universal values, not ideological preferences. Our non-aligned stance enables us to pursue an independent foreign policy that serves our national interests and contributes to global peace and stability. This means engaging with all countries, regardless of their geopolitical alignment.' Phiri added: 'We wish to reiterate that South Africa's genocide case against Israel in the International Court of Justice is fundamentally driven by our commitment to upholding a rules-based international order anchored in international law, with the aim of protecting vulnerable populations and ensuring that all actors, including powerful states, are bound by these principles. It is not, as you suggest, driven by ideological alignment, but by a consistent pursuit of justice and the reinforcement of international legal frameworks.' Attempts to get comments from the ANC and the DA were unsuccessful at the time of publication.
